our guest has argued a number of cases before the supreme court, carol steiker. and kent scheidegger, advocating in favor of capital punishment anymore swift moving capital justice system. he has written numerous pleas in before thety cases supreme court. watch "landmark cases" on c-span adjoined the conversation. #landmarkcases, and we have research, the "landmark cases" companion book, a link to constitution center's, and the "landmark cases" podcast at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> next on american history tv, we learn about the history of african americans and eugenics.

historian aya nuriddin. this is recorded at the american historical society's annual meeting in washington, d.c. this is just under 15 minutes. nuriddin is a john hopkins candidate. i was curious to know that johns hopkins, one of america's top medical schools and top hospitals has a history of medicine. department within the school of medicine. why is it important for the school of medicine to study history of medicine? ms. nurridin: some of the greatest physicians at johns hopkins believed that understanding history is an important way to understand the path the professionals were making. the department was started in 1929. it is the first department of history of medicine in the united states. they really were excited about using knowledge of the past to

benefit medical knowledge in the present. we sort of keep that tradition going and have expanded on it in a lot of ways to think about the role of humanity and thinking about the current medical ethics and a sort of problems that come up in the hospital nowadays. we like to think we are a resource for the hospital. susan: how did you get particularly interested in this field? ms. nurridin: it was actually really accidental. i used to work at georgetown university. i started shelving books. google books i was supposed to be shelving i actually started reading them instead he came across really rich material about the history of eugenics and genetics and human extremities and and all the things that create a lot of ethical quandaries now that have interesting historical roots. susan: we will talk about eugenics. will you explain what the term means? ms. nurridin: there is a lot of different definitions of what

counts as eugenics. some of those definitions include the science of human improvement through better breeding. others define it as the self-direction of human evolution. at its core, it's about a set of beliefs and practices about improving the quality of individuals and populations for their collective future. susan: is it always controversial? ms. nurridin: it has been, yes. susan: neede it be? ms. nurridin: it is a tough call because there are a lot of questions of when do we sort of go wrong with these eugenics. a lot of historical actors i look at in my work really believed there was a right way to do eugenics and a wrong way to do eugenics. nowadays it is a bit more controversial because of the types of associations we have with the term. but the questions never really go away. the idea we can improve people on a biological level is still inflected in a lot of scientific practice. susan: as you pursue your phd, you have a particular area of

interest. would you explain what you are delving into? ms. nurridin: it is still a very preliminary, but what i'm interested in looking at is the ways in which african americans in particular new -- use these ideas of eugenics and looked can be called racial science to think about racial improvement and racial equality. thinking about how science and medicine can be mobilized for the political project of black liberation. susan: what are some key dates in the study of eugenics in the black population? ms. nurridin: key dates -- a few that are important of the founding of certain types of eugenic institutions, like the eugenics record office, which was started in the early 1900's. the founding of the american eugenics society. there are a number of other types of organizations that are similar. there is also the passage of compulsory sterilization laws, which gets a lot of coverage in the black press.

a lot of really interesting conversations coming up about whether or not the practice of things like sterilization was beneficial to the collective future of the race or whether or not it would ultimately be oppressive. people move back and forth about a lot of these questions. susan: who are some of the key names important to your study across history? ms. nurridin: so, some include what i would call the architect of the eugenics movement. people like charles davenport, the founder of the eugenics records office at coldspring server. harper. harbor.springs i look to a lot of african-american intellectuals. people like w.e.b. dubois, and william montague cobb, and anatomy professor at howard university and the first black physical anthropologist. he uses a lot of medical and anthropological knowledge to make arguments about what racial

difference really does and does not do and how things like eugenics can be used to mobilize those kinds of differences for a greater good. susan: tell me about w.e.b dubois' place in this picture. ms. nurridin: he is interested in thinking about how the collective race can be improved on a social level like angst through education and on a biological level. it is usually framed as a kind of respectability politics in terms of education and religion and moral improvement. but there is a biological underpinning about who is actually fit enough to constitute this talented population. i have a number of interesting little nuggets from his work. one was an article from margaret sanger's birth-control review, where he published in a special

issue thousand titled "a negro number" about black people in and birth-control. the concluding in his article was something to the effect that like a vegetable -- he uses that comparison, quality of accounts and not mere quantity. having quality reproduction rather than just simply having children for the sake of having them. susan: people who are not susan: people who are not familiar with du bois, what was the time period in which he was active? ms. nurridin: the first half of the 20 century. he has a long career. one of his most important works is published in 1904, but he's writing until his death until the 1960's. he is covering a broad range. susan: what impact do you think he ultimately had on society and black history in america? ms. nurridin: he is a pivotal figure. one of the architects of the black intellectual tradition. not certainly alone, but because he was such a prolific author he

, he really influenced a lot of disciplines. ae is trained as a histori n, but he has really important effects on the discipline of sociology. he has considered one of the founders of modern sociology as we understand it today. he has a broad impact. a lot of scholars read him because he is the foundation for a lot of thought in the 20th century. he has this really important intellectual impact, but as far as the history of eugenics goes, he is one blip on a radar of a much larger set of discourses. susan: you mentioned margaret sanger. who was she and what role did she play in the field of eugenics and black american population? ms. nurridin: margaret sanger, we sort of think back on her as the founder of what now is called planned parenthood. she is one of the key activists in promoting the idea that women should have reproductive autonomy and control of the reproduction through the use of

birth control, which at the time she is looking at gus not really include the pill like we think about it now, but other kinds of devices. it also includes education and knowledge about how the reproductive system works. she is a really important figure in my dissertation because she does some really interesting collaborative work with a number of african-american intellectuals and physicians. she collaborates with du bois and a lot of local, smaller african-american organizations to develop things like birth-control clinics in black neighborhoods. she is this really important figure that a lot of the physicians and others in my dissertation refer to her as this really important figure. one i will be talking about

tomorrow is dr. emil buzzfield. he visited one of these clinics in harlem. he said he was so pleased with what he saw in this clinic and said a colored woman needs to become the margaret sanger of her race. she has this really broad reach in these conversations about african-american birth control and eugenics, etc. she is also in the first half of the 20th century. she probably started in the teens to the 1940's and 1950's. susan: in the black community is , is margaret sanger controversial today? ms. nurridin: she is controversial today, because of the history of talking about my dissertation has seeped into the modern, more popular discourse about margaret sanger. there is a lot of controversy because people make arguments that organizations like planned parenthood are trying to decimate the black population through things like birth control and abortion, etc. there isn't a lot of knowledge about this sort of collaborative past where margaret sanger and african americans sort of team

up because they think the project of birth control is something that is beneficial to the future of the race. susan: what do you hope will happen as a result of your work? ms. nurridin: i hope people will get a better understanding of the ways that eugenics, birth control, and these hereditarian ideas have a broader reach than a lot of work has presently shown. these are interesting ways in which these ideas don't just exist among scientists and physicians and biologists but really seep into the popular culture where people are invested in mobilizing these ideas for the betterment of humanity. one thing i tell my students is during the 1910's, everyone was a eugenicist. if you walk down the street and asked a regular person, should we use our knowledge to address social inequality, almost everyone would say yes. that's a bit of a daunting thought for us now.

in the first half of the 20th century, it seemed like a promising set of practices. susan: when and why did that change? ms. nurridin: one of the turning points i would argue -- it does shift in some ways. the turning point is world war ii and sort of the outcomes of nazi atrocities. that is when people start moving away from the term. a lot of the questions eugenicists are bringing up about using heredity and later genetics to talk about social issues does not really go away. it migrates into other fields by like genetics and social sciences. people are still bound by these genetic terms and ways of thinking to talk about other kinds of problems. susan: is there a field of eugenics being practiced today , or has it gone out of favor? ms. nurridin: i would argue it is still being practiced, but i think there are a number of people who would disagree, because we don't call it eugenics anymore.

a lot of people don't call it eugenics anymore. we tend to think of these issues of reproduction and genetic technology as about individual choice rather than this sort of state-controlled vision of eugenics that we saw in the first half of the 20th century. i would argue the questions that eugenicists were asking in 1910 are some of the same tostions that we are using talk about things like cloning and designer babies and new genetic technologies like crispr. those are still being mobilized in our modern conversations. the ideas don't really go away. susan: it sounds from your last answer that it is getting more complicated because of technology. ms. nurridin: it is. sarah: do you see that -- these questions and are ethical considerations in a bigger and bigger for our society? ms. nurridin: i think it will get more collocated because there is a large portion of our

society to think about on genetic terms. we talk about certain ideas being in our dna. we often see articles in the news -- oh, we found the gene for this. there is a gene for people for schizophrenia. we are looking for genes for addiction. we were talking about people looking at genes to talk about things like homosexuality and trans identity, because we tend to think of putting genes as a way to understand things that exist in the world. as long as we are trapped in thinking in those genetic terms, the eugenics questions will come in to play. if we think more broadly about the sort of social and cultural and environmental causes, we s of certain kinds of things, then we might be able to think beyond a genetic set of terms to think about a lot of issues. so, it will get more complicated. susan: important to know the history as it gets more complicated. thank you for giving us a brief look at eugenics and african americans in our society.

ms. nurridin: thank you for having me. "1968:ay morning on america in turmoil, we look at , including the vietnam war, the presidential campaign, and the space race. joining us talk about that turbulent time are elizabeth, historian and documentary filmmaker, and mark kramer, curator of the project of the cold war studies. "1968: america in turmoil" on c-span's john announcer 1: "american history tv" is looking back 50 years to the political turmoil of 1968. up next, "generations apart, a profile in dissent." this cbs broadcast from may 27, 1969 focuses on youth and their

parents in the boulder, colorado area and explores their opinions about the vietnam war, generation gap, racial tensions, and their views on dissent. this is the second of a three-part program based on a national opinion survey of about 1300 young people between the ages of 17 and 23. some who attended college, and others who did not. this is just under an hour. host: it is a time of dissent for many of america's young. the collision of events they could not control has caused a challenge to values they cannot accept. what are the key events? what has been their impact? we have surveyed the attitudes of youth closely, and this is what they say. >> i would just say probably